Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Stupid Blog Post of the Week - #2

JimO said...
Where's his PhD diploma?Where's his certificate of graduation from flight school?Where's his certification of Lunar Receiving Laboratory work in anything related to photo or image management?Doesn't this blizzard of secondary, peripheral paperwork look like a snow job to anybody else?
November 20, 2007 8:14 AM

The Fool said...
What about "Dr" Johnston's fake degrees? Why has THAT not been addressed, if it is important to verify "credentials"?
November 20, 2007 8:53 AM

Robert Gonzales Jr. said...
Ken Johnson claims to have two advanced degrees from Reformed Baptist Seminary. I am the academic dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary (, and I can assure the readers that he did not obtain any degrees from our seminary. Either there is another institution that goes by that name (of which I am unaware) or Ken Johnson is giving false information.
November 15, 2007 8:22 AM

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Enjoy your turkey (or crow, as the case may be).

This final posting now marks the close of this Spanish Inquisition against the credentials and credibility of Dr. Ken Johnston.

-- Mike

Saturday, November 17, 2007

A Question of Credentials - Post 4

Ken's reciept for his application to the astronaut corps.

A personal endorsement for his application from Neil Armstrong, and another one from astronaut Jack Swigert.

A personal letter from Apollo 15 astronaut Jim Irwin, expressing his support for Ken's candidacy.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Chronology of Events – The Empire Strikes Back – Post 2

October 19th, 2007 - Later the same day that James Oberg sent his email to Kay Ferrari, Ferrari called Johnston at his home in New Mexico and, according to Johnston, pressured him to resign his position as a Solar System Ambassador. As stated in Post #1, the reasons Ferrari gave were “serious issues regarding Johnston’s credentials” (as raised by Oberg) and Ken’s so-called “crackpot accusations” against the agency (also pointed out to Ferrari by the links in Oberg’s email).

Of course, Ken has never made any “accusations” of any kind against the agency – he has simply reported honestly on what he saw on several occasions while working as a contractor at the agency.

Ferrari then went on to state that it was Johnston “being quoted [as] criticizing NASA in Hoagland’s new book, ‘Dark Mission,’” that prompted her to ask for Johnston’s resignation from the SSA Program.

Johnston was at first reluctant, but then agreed under pressure from Ferrari to consider resigning. At no time during this initial phone call did he tender his resignation from the SSA program. Later that same night, he appeared on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory and described the conversation this way:

Transcript Coast to Coast AM Oct. 19th, 1997:

Ken: The only condition that was given was, you know, you ought to resign. I said “Ok, probably will.”

Again, this does NOT constitute an agreement by Johnston to resign, only to consider resigning.

As the day wore on and after consulting with family and friends, Johnston decided not to resign. He based this on the fact that JPL employees (who were paid by the agency, as opposed to being volunteers like he was) were allowed to express many diverse beliefs, and were even protected specifically from being fired for doing so. He then sent the following email to Ferrari, making clear his intention NOT to resign.

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:47:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ken Johnston" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by Learn more Subject: SSA Ken Johnston, Sr. To:

Dear Kay Ferrari,

After reflecting on our conversation this morning, I find that I have been placed in an untenable position with regards to the volunteer work that I have done for NASA/JPL over the past 4 years. During that time I have received nothing but the highest regards and reports on my efforts on behalf of JPL and the unmanned planetary program. Why this should be questioned now, based on third-party "hearsay," I fail to understand.

As you mentioned in our conversation, there are people all over NASA and JPL that have "all kinds of beliefs and positions on just about any subject." This fact made me realize that these people are paid employees of NASA and JPL, whereas I am an unpaid volunteer. Considering this position, and my rights of free speech under the FIRST AMENDMENT, I realized there is absolutely no valid reason why I should even consider resigning my position as a Solar System Ambassador. If I did, I would be undermining everything that NASA ultimately says it stands for -- certainly in terms of intellectual freedom to explore the cutting edge of science and the solar system.
Sincerely, Ken Johnston, Sr.

Within a few days of his phone call with and follow up email to Ferrari, Dr. Johnston’s profile had been removed from the JPL Solar System Ambassador page. This prompted Ken to email Kay Ferrari in response:

Ken Johnston (
Tue 10/23/07 12:06 PM
To: Kay Ferrari,

I just finished checking our SSA web site and found
that I don't exist any more.

Why was my data pulled?

Is there a grievance procedure?

Where do I start?

I see no reason why I should be punished for what
someone else puts in a book.

Please respond,

Ken Johnston,
SSA New Mexico
Two days later, Ken received the following response from Ferrari:

--- Kay Ferrari wrote: > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:34:13 -0700> To: Ken Johnston > From: Kay Ferrari > Subject: Re: SSA Data?

Dear Ken,

In the renewal agreement you signed on December 23, 2006, it stated that your volunteer position would be in effect for two years if all parties agree that the arrangement is working satisfactorily. JPL has chosen to accept your original resignation offered on October 19, 2007 and has thereby removed your information from the website.

Kay Ferrari Coordinator

Of course, as we have already established, Ken never “offered” his resignation from the SSA program on October 19th, 2007, or at any other time. Further, he specifically sent Ferrari an email clarifying this position six days previously. Nonetheless, he then received a certified letter from Ferrari and JPL the next day “accepting” this mythical resignation that he never tendered (See Above)

As you can see, the registered letter was mailed October 22nd, 2007, three days after Ken’s phone conversation with Ferrari and his subsequent email sent to her declining to resign – and which she never acknowledged. The termination letter is back dated to make it appear that it was written on October 19th, even though it clearly wasn’t.

Next: A Question of Credentials

Monday, November 12, 2007

Chronology of Events - The Empire Strikes Back

The following is the first in a series of posts to provide viewers of this blog a specific chronology of events surrounding Dr. Ken Johnston’s involuntary termination from JPL’s Solar System Ambassador Program.

The entire sequence of events which led to Dr. Johnston’s termination began with an email from NBC science reporter James Oberg to Kay Ferrari of JPL’s SSA program on October 19th, 2007. As you can see from the signature, Oberg sent this email in his capacity as an NBC science reporter.

Here is that initial email:

From: "Jim Oberg" To: Cc: , ,"james oberg" Subject: question re ambassador Ken JohnstonDate: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:45:04 -0500X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138X-Source-IP: []X-Source-Sender: jeoberg@comcast.netX-JPL-spam-score: 0.00%To: Kay Ferrari:

Hi! I'm checking out some stories attributed to New Mexico Solar System Ambassador Ken Johnston, described at<>, that NASA photos from Apollo show alien structures on the Moon which NASA is covering up, and that Richard Hoagland is correct about NASA and its astronauts lying to the public.See <> and<>

and <> etc etc

Some criticism here: <> Noory, ;Coast to Coast' (all night show, formerly 'Art Bell' show)<>
"Ken Johnston, who worked for NASA for 23 years, appeared in Hour 2, and described screening Apollo footage and seeing a cluster of lights in a moon crater accompanied by a plume of steam. But then two days later when he showed the footage to some officials, the crater material had been seamlessly removed. Perhaps even more surprising was Johnston and Hoagland's supposition that astronauts who went to the moon may have had their memories altered or blanked in order to suppress their knowledge of what they saw there."

Is he still an 'ambassador' in good standing, and did you ever make any effort to verify any of his professional/educational claims as published on your website?If he was 61 in 2007, as the data indicates, he was born in 1946, so "in the 1960's" he would have been about 20. To learn to fly jets in the Marines, and then serve out his service commitment (3 to 4 years), and then become a Grumman LM pilot instructor by 1969, he'd have had to begin flight training at about the age of 17, I figure -- which doesn't seem credible, since he's have had to have been a commissioned officer before that step. What am I overlooking here?He also says he examined original Apollo imagery in the Lunar Receiving Lab at JSC. Please correct me on this as needed, but I thought that film was transferred from the quarantine facility (and LRL) to the regular Bldg 8 photoprocessing lab for development and printing -- NOT handled by a temporary facility within the LRL area? Have I got that wrong?


Jim Oberg<
NBC News space consultant

As stated in the Enterprise Mission press release of 10\30\2007, Ferrari stated that it was Oberg’s email which prompted her to call Johnston and request his resignation. To quote: “JPL’s ultimate decision to fire Dr. Johnston was initiated, according to Ferrari’s phone call, ‘by an initial inquiry to JPL from James Oberg, of NBC News.’ Oberg is a former NASA contractor and a colleague of Johnston’s at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center during the Apollo Program in the 1970’s. According to Ferrari, Oberg, in his e-mails, raised ‘serious issues regarding Johnston’s credentials’ and his ‘crackpot accusations’ against the agency.”

Ferrari then went on to state that it was Johnston “being quoted [as] criticizing NASA in Hoagland’s new book, ‘Dark Mission,’” that prompted her to ask for Johnston’s resignation from the SSA Program.

In other words, were it not for Oberg’s email to Ferrari (and several other JPL press officers), Johnston would still be part of the SSA program. The fact that Oberg hides behind the following statement: “Fact. I did not ever urge anyone to alter in any way Ken's status in the Solar System Ambassador program” does not change the reality that his email is the sole reason Ken is no longer with the SSA program.

Even though Oberg did not specifically call for Johnston to be terminated from the SSA program, he certainly knew what would happen when he sent his email to Ferrari and the JPL press people. As the email shows, he called into question Johnston’s credentials without bothering to check them himself.

If Oberg was acting as a responsible, impartial reporter, the obvious move would have been to simply go directly to the source – Dr. Johnston himself – about his credentials.

Oberg, however, instead of going to Johnston, went to his “bosses” at JPL in an obvious attempt to get him trouble, if not overtly fired. He certainly knew when he sent the email to various JPL sources that they would launch an investigation prompted solely by his email.

We leave it to readers to decide if a responsible journalist would seek to undermine the position of an employee by questioning his credentials in a prejudicial letter to his bosses rather than inquiring directly to that person as a first step.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Stupid Blog Post of the Week

It's hard to believe that somebody besides Jim Oberg won this award, but Expat managed to trump him this week. Here goes:

expat wrote:

"Since you write in your TOS post "Criticism of our data and arguments is certainly allowed", I have a few points:1] On page II of the introduction, you make much of the fact that Sec 305 (i) of the Space Act includes the clause "The Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of Ch 17, Title 35 of the United States Code". Are you aware that Title 35 is exclusively concerned with US Govt policy in respect of patentable inventions by Govt employees, and has no conceivable application to photography of the moon or artifacts retrieved from the moon? If you are aware of this, don't you consider it would have been more honest to point that out in your text? If you were not aware of this when you wrote your intro, I have now made you aware of it and you can verify it with a few google-clicks. Will you add a correction at next edition?"

Are you aware how completely wrong you are?

According to this section of the Title 35 code:

“When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates—

(a) The term “invention” means invention or discovery [emphasis added].”

Obviously, any bona fide alien artifacts discovered by Apollo, either in the form of NASA photographic evidence of same, or actual samples of ET technology brought back from the lunar surface by the Apollo crews, would clearly fall under the authority of Title 35, according to this specific language. So, again -- you are completely, utterly, totally wrong.

I guess I don’t need to make a correction for the revised edition after all, do I expat?

But, I really appreciate you pointing everyone else to this key section of the Space Act, which makes our legal case air tight -- against NASA's supposed "scientific openness," certainly when it comes to any genuine "extraterrestrial technology" it clandestinely discovered and brought home.

"2] As we well know, media of every kind from every country in the world had access to Public Affairs Offices in every one of the NASA Centers dring and following Apollo. In light of this, which photographs are you claiming are "never before seen", and how would you know that they had not been examined or published by any of the world's media?"

There are a number of frames, like various versions of AS10-32-4822, which were blacked out in the photographic catalogs and\or pilfered from the desk of the NASA administrator back in the 1970’s that have never before been published. We know this because we have been the only ones in possession of the originals. It’s all in the book.

"3] Your statement that Farouk El-Baz was "the most powerful figure in the whole Apollo Program" is in error. Dr El Baz's title was secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee, 1967-72. He also had an important function in astronaut geological training. Did you not know that the offices of Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, Administrator of the Office of Manned Space Flight, and Director of JSC (held at the material time by George Low, George Mueller, and Bob Gilruth respectively) had infinitely more influence on the management of Project Apollo than any committe secretary? Low, Mueller, and Gilruth -- not to mention Administrators Webb and Paine -- could have eaten El-Baz for breakfast if they had so desired. Now that I have reminded you of this fact, will you add a correction at next edition?"

This statement is not “in error,” within the context of our book. Since we place a great deal of emphasis on the landing site selection, and since El-Baz had the greatest influence on that, he was a lot more important than the guys who oversaw the design process of the spacecraft. Who do you think had more influence on picking the landing site for Apollo 11? Low? Mueller? Gilruth? Or El-Baz?

I see no reason to correct a “fact” which is merely your uninformed opinion. Nice try though.

Perhaps you should do more thorough research before embarrass yourself further.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

I'm Baaaack!

Ok, I just got back from my trip to Las Vegas and LA. The lecture went really well. I'll be getting back to issues on this blog over the next few days.


I'm now ready to address any grievances you have against me regarding the issues you keep bringing up. If you could just put them into a concise, bulleted list so I can address them one by one, rather than have to troll through numerous emails and blog posts, I would appreciate it. You can either post it here or send it to my private email. Please express a preference as to whether you'd like a public or private response. I'll have it for you in a few days, after I get caught up on bills and such.


Thursday, November 1, 2007

Press Conference News and Notes

Looks like we made the front page of the Pravda RU web site:

More to come as I get it...

Update: Added some images from Russian television taken at the presser...